Proper responses to James White's debate arguments

Bible Protector gives sound and proper King James Bible Only responses to James White's debate arguments, in answer to several points brought up in his debate with Jack Moorman in the UK in early 2011.

(Includes several clips taken from the debate, reproduced for educational and review purposes.)

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Bible
• James
• White
• debate
• argument
• answer
• editions
• version
• translation
• KJBO
• UK

[IshMelamaid]

Personally, I don't understand much of your reasoning here. You critique White's bringing up the presence of various editions of the KJV-- and then detail that, yes, there are various editions. Then, at the end, you arbitrarily assert that the pure Cambridge edition is the right one. Why?

Basically, you deal with none of White's actual argument, opting rather to deal with one minor point which you resolve with an arbitrary, unsupported (in the film anyway) response. Is there more here?

[bibleprotector]

@IshMelamaid

White is says that there is an Oxford and a Cambridge Edition of the KJB which are different. He is using this to imply that there is no standard.

I am briefly showing that there are many editions, including various from Oxford and from Cambridge, and that there is a standard one.

I do not go into the reasons for the Pure Cambridge Edition in this little video, but my website has plenty of further information.

[mark0454]

(2) On the contrary, I honestly feel that the tenacious stand that KJVO take that the KJV is perfect down to the "to-day" vs "today" invites the claims that although the KJV is extremely accurate,it does contain variations that should be addressed.

When you make the claim that you are the "Fastest gun in the West" is that not inviting the challenge for someone to prove otherwise.

When a claim is made that the KJV is perfect, does that not invite those to say; "Wait a minute, what about...?

[bibleprotector]

@mark0454 Spelling is not an issue like word changes. And if you advocate novel unauthorised word changes, then that is dangerous.

[curvalecce]

This video presents the bizarre idea that the KJV is somehow the utterly unchangeable and true Bible, and yet the KJV has a 1611 version (with MANY variants), a 1769 version, and has two major sub-sets (Oxford and Cambridge) which differ from each other. I thought the KJVO argument was that one ought to resist the 'modern versions' because they were so variable. The narrator of this post seems blissfully unaware of the inherent inconsistency in what he is pleased to call his argument.

[bibleprotector]

@curvalecce I will suffer you this one comment.

The KJB text and translation is unchanged in all editions.

There are many editions, with plenty of tiny differences (e.g. editorial changes, copy editing changes, printing mistakes).

No difference in any normal edition really equates to a change in the underlying text and translation.

Therefore, there is no problem with the argument for the KJB.

[tonysshadow]

Maybe Im being simpleminded. It seems to me folks argue "editions" like arguing 1965 Mustang vs 2011 Mustang car models. Thats not proper nor meaningful in anyway. Just saying this edition of KJB is different from that edition...is a conclusion not an argument. James White and most others Ive heard pretty much just say that. and makes me tend to believe their arguments must be weak.

[mark0454]

"That view denies God’s power, providence and promises."

Good afternoon Sir. I hope you are well. But, do we know that God's power and providence IS in Rev 16.5 KJV use of "Lord" and NOT in other version's use of "Holy one." Likewise with I John 5.7.

I do not feel that James White's defense and promotion of quality translations constitutes an attack on the KJV.

cont..

[KJBman777]

Those against the KJB will use all types of devilish reasoning to condone their point of view.

[bibleprotector]

One person commented (and I will not approve the comments because they contain false accusations) that James White does not attack the KJB, just KJBO. I think that James White's attempted criticisms of the KJB constitute an attack on the KJB itself, because he says that the KJB is wrong in places.

White's book promotes the wrong idea that "all translations are questionable because fallible men are working from imperfect manuscripts". That view denies God’s power, providence and promises.